Atheism Peaks, While Spiritual Groups Move Toward Convergence

[abaddon]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong.

Well, it's the only thing i found interesting in the article.

I found other things, but then I'm weird. I was thinking atheism's obvious between atheists. Other times I've though on how atheists often nitpick words; they like exactness. But that's good. Theists seem, usually, to not share this interest so they tend to be extremely sloppy with it. And it shows in the quality of their thinking.

I'm hesitant because maybe that's an overgeneralization. But no, I think it's not. If they were more exact in their thoughts then nebulous conceptual blobs like "God" might be less convincing to them.

 

[abaddon]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong. They'll elaborate the definition to death, and often. This mere “lack of belief” sure has a lot of identity issues wrapped up in it.

Are you and others claiming the atheism just means “a lack of belief in a God or Gods?”

And by this are you and others are implying that atheism is therefore not a worldview?

Thus providing an escape hatch from having to defend your worldview?

I know it’s been answered, and more than adequately, but I’ll join in anyway.

To answer each question in turn:

Yes.

It can't be, this shouldn't be that hard to understand; though it's plain theists have trouble because they start with their own mind and life experience (and so think in terms of "denominations", for one example) and then use that as the template for pigeonholing others. Finding people who use "atheism" for shorthand isn’t the same as uncovering people who “claim” it’s a worldview. If you want my (or anyone's) worldview, you should ask what it is. For myself, very broadly speaking, my worldview is naturalism; I think nature is all. And where does atheism fit in there? Is it a doctrine of naturalism? Is the worldview built upon this central tenet? Nope, it's just a side-effect of naturalism. It’s similar to my enjoyment of bicycling. The sport is not about no-engine-ism; travel without an engine is just a consequence of taking up bicycling.

I’ll readily discuss my worldview. Now if you want to keep it to theism vs. atheism instead, that’s possible. I can attack theism in the most general terms, assuming it’s supernaturalist theism because, as a naturalist, I think positing supernaturalism distracts from life and reality rather than illuminates anything about it. But notice there how I had to shift from the just the mere no-god belief (atheism) to my worldview (naturalism). You can attack atheism on grounds that the lack of belief is absurd because some variety of god is necessary for things in nature to be as they are (but to get into details you'll have to shift from the generic theism to your actual worldview, I presume some variety of Christianity).

 

[atrib]

I have addressed the grammatical counter. I was attempting to challenge those who deny it’s a worldview to avoid a burden of proof, a philosophical issue. Many here do not espouse this route. The grammatical counter does nothing to lift the burden of proof it only serves to indicate that I need to explore further as to which kind of atheistic worldview they need to defend.

Atheists do not make any positive claims. They only reject the positive claims made by theists because such claims are not supported by evidence and logic. There is no burden on the atheist to defend his position.

Belief in unicorns does not address worldview realities. Belief or nonbelief in God certainly does. This unicorn, nessy, flying spaghetti monster bologna is juvenile and annoying.

Gods are juvenile and annoying too when they are being rammed down the throats of nonbelievers. The only significant difference between belief in the existence of gods and unicorns is that many more people believe the former as compared to the latter. There is no evidence to support the belief that gods exist, just as there is no evidence to support the belief that unicorns exist. Just because you believe in a god does not make your belief special. Why should they be treated differently?

 

[skepticalbip]

Reason based on articles of faith rather than the verifiable is not actually reason but a logical extension of faith.

Not following you here. Please clarify.

Certainly. Everyone reasons but some use very faulty reasoning because they do not question the validity of their assumptions which they have taken on faith. Their "reasoning" is actually a "logical extension of faith".

Example: Some Biblical authorities have determined that the universe is around six thousand years old based on the genealogy given in Genesis after the creation. This assumes that the Bible is inspired truth and infallible. A "reasoned" logical extension of this (expounded by young Earth creationists) is that the findings of geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, radiologists, etc. etc. are all wrong, and not just wrong but absurd and meaningless since their findings contradict the YEC's belief which is based on faith.

 

[remez]

First

Until you define your personal version of 'God', you may as well ask whether thingy is a good explanation of reality.

This is nothing I was hiding. I assumed my past posts here going back to the infidels days would have defined my theism. But God is the beginningless, necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Norse mythology explains reality; but not very well. It is a theist hypothesis.

Mormonism explains reality; also not very well. It too is a theist hypothesis.

True, but each lack the reasonable support to be considered plausible.

Quantum electrodynamics explains some aspects of reality, and does so very well indeed. It is an atheist hypothesis.

General Relativity explains some aspects of reality, also very well. It's atheist too.

These are scientific hypothesis. An unreasonable weak stretch to claim they are atheistic to support atheism. The philosophical structure of science limits hypothesis of science only to the natural. Yet scientific truths, theories and hypotheses can support either.

Asking whether theism or atheism are the best explanations for something is also just a mistake.

Basically, I’m espousing a Biblical-Christian theism. Is my position on theism settled for you? Am I free to refer to it as theism with those identified parameters? Or can you suggest a better term?
Before you or anyone begins to oppose clearly define your form of atheism.

Further to address several reference to my hang up on denominations of atheism. I’m fully aware you do not espouse denominations. I was using the term pejoratively.

I don't know what a God is - I know of hundreds of contradictory definitions of 'God', and none of them are both falsifiable and compatible with observed reality.

Why do they have to pass some arbitrary self-refuting condition to be compatible with reality?
Is your worldview one of empiricism and falsification?

 

[remez]

Atheists do not make any positive claims. They only reject the positive claims made by theists because such claims are not supported by evidence and logic. There is no burden on the atheist to defend his position.

By reason they reject theistic claims. These reasons are positive positions an atheist espouses from their worldview. And it is those reasons that need a defense. You cannot begin to belief your reasoning is true by default.

Gods are juvenile and annoying too when they are being rammed down the throats of nonbelievers. The only significant difference between belief in the existence of gods and unicorns is that many more people believe the former as compared to the latter.

I’m not trying to ram theism down your throat. I’m adjudicating the reasons you have to reject theism.

What is your reasoning to suggest that the only difference is popularity?

My guess is your materialism. Thus you need to defend your materialism here and then clarify your categorical fallacy.

Just because you believe in a god does not make your belief special. Why should they be treated differently?

Just because you don’t believe in a god means your reasons for doing so are reasonable.

 

[remez]

Certainly. Everyone reasons but some use very faulty reasoning because they do not question the validity of their assumptions which they have taken on faith. Their "reasoning" is actually a "logical extension of faith".

I concur some do. To assume I do the same is faulty reasoning.

Example: Some Biblical authorities have determined that the universe is around six thousand years old based on the genealogy given in Genesis after the creation.

Again some do. As I and most others ponder the evidence the YEC position is unreasonable. It’s logically falling out of favor just like empiricism and scientism.

 

[remez]

This is in context to my last post to bilby.

If you want my (or anyone's) worldview, you should ask what it is. For myself, very broadly speaking, my worldview is naturalism; I think nature is all. And where does atheism fit in there? Is it a doctrine of naturalism?

Empirically I have done just that several times!

Thank you for stating your atheistic worldview of naturalism. I contend that just about all atheistic worldviews posit this positive claim.

Naturalism certainly needs a defense, it is not true by default. Would you also espouse materialism?

 

[skepticalbip]

I concur some do. To assume I do the same is faulty reasoning.

And where did you see an assertion that you, personally, did?

Example: Some Biblical authorities have determined that the universe is around six thousand years old based on the genealogy given in Genesis after the creation.

Again some do. As I and most others ponder the evidence the YEC position is unreasonable. It’s logically falling out of favor just like empiricism and scientism.

How can that interpretation "logically fall out of favor" if the Bible is accepted as infallible true divine revelation? For the universe to be older than the six thousand or so years calculated by the listed genealogy, the Bible would have had to have been in error by omitting a hell of a lot of generations - not to mention the billions of years before humans showed up.

 

[lpetrich]

I read that article. What a load of self-congratulatory twaddle.

Judging by the literature, the science establishment is increasingly non-hostile to views of reality that are not narrowly materialistic. These days, many scientists and science writers, whether atheist or otherwise, appear to have taken to heart Einstein’s dictum that: “All physics is metaphysics.” The ultimate non-reality of the physical world around us, the existence of unseen dimensions, the questions that generate discussion of the cosmological anthropic principle—these are all areas of lively, open discussion. While the science community remains as allergic as ever to anything that smacks of “pseudoscience”, we are honest enough to admit that there are numerous aspects of quantum theory that appear to move beyond that which can be explained by purely physical factors (such as the measurement problem, action at a distance, entanglement and so on). Since the confirmation of Bell’s Inequality, there is no doubt there exists a mysterious extra dimension outside our concept of time and space.

Mystic-physics twaddle. Quantum mechanics is just plain *weird* -- it has features that are rather grossly counterintuitive.

As to QM entanglement, it's an effect of particles having combined wavefunctions that do not neatly decompose into products of individual-particle wavefunctions. Entanglement experiments show that those combined wavefunctions can stay coherent over the size of the laboratory equipment used to research this effect. No mystic physics anywhere in sight.

 

[remez]

How can that interpretation "logically fall out of favor" if the Bible is accepted as infallible true divine revelation? For the universe to be older than the six thousand or so years calculated by the listed genealogy, the Bible would have had to have been in error by omitting a hell of a lot of generations - not to mention the billions of years before humans showed up.

I was truly surprised by that post……… given your position on theistic knowledge and history.

Actually it is more than just a "psychological state of mind". It is more a conclusion reached after a lot of research. Most atheists seem to know more about religions than the believers in those religions. This is because most have actually done a lot of study of the dogma, tenets, basis, history, etc. in an attempt to understand what the faith is about. My grandfather was a minister so I grew up in the church and begin trying to understand the self-contradictions in the religion at about the age of twelve. Finding that the self-contradictions were indeed exactly that, I looked into other religions trying to find some reasonable faith, unsuccessfully. I finally began trying to make sense of the concept of a god and could find no sense or reason in the concept.

Young earth vs old earth debate was common table talk. Common, safe and simple. Perhaps you need the revisit the library, there is the hint of the answer you seek in your own objection. Enjoy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

By reason they reject theistic claims.

Well, i reject the 'god' part of 'god did it' because i have yet to see a reason to believe in any deities. So any theistic claims are, in my view, built on a foundation of fantasy and/or ignorance.

Positive claims made without evidence can be dismissed without too much cerebral exertion.

These reasons are positive positions an atheist espouses from their worldview.

Not really.
It's more, before you can convince me that God is the source of all morality, say, you need to convince me that there is a God.
Before you can convince me that God made the world in six days, you need to convince me there's a god who could have made the world.

And it is those reasons that need a defense.

And that defense is that i don't accept your conclusions because i don't agree with your assumptions.

 

[skepticalbip]

I was truly surprised by that post……… given your position on theistic knowledge and history.

Why were you surprised. I know perfectly well why the six thousand year old universe interpretation has "fallen out of favor". The fact that the idea was silly became obvious to all but the most bull headed several hundred years ago. The discussion that followed in Christianity was how to "interpret" the Bible so that it didn't appear so ridiculous. The post was to show that the idea that "the Bible is accepted as infallible true divine revelation" ain't so except for a small hard corps section of Christianity. The Bible is recognized by others as something that is not to be taken entirely literally. The fact that the Earth is much, much older is obvious even to the scientifically illiterate. What is humorous is the hand waving done to make the Bible both right and wrong - little things like redefining the length of a day.

I was surprised that you would be among those for who the interpretation has "fallen out of favor" since you claimed earlier that the Bible was inspired and infallible. "Infallible" and "not to be taken entirely literally" are worlds apart.

 

[atrib]

By reason they reject theistic claims. These reasons are positive positions an atheist espouses from their worldview. And it is those reasons that need a defense. You cannot begin to belief your reasoning is true by default.

Did you miss this part of my post which stated why atheists reject theist claims?

They only reject the positive claims made by theists because such claims are not supported by evidence and logic.

Or is there something you did not not understand about this statement? If you have evidence and logic to support your claims about various gods feel free to post them here.

Gods are juvenile and annoying too when they are being rammed down the throats of nonbelievers. The only significant difference between belief in the existence of gods and unicorns is that many more people believe the former as compared to the latter.

I’m not trying to ram theism down your throat. I’m adjudicating the reasons you have to reject theism.

What is your reasoning to suggest that the only difference is popularity?

There is no evidence to support the claim unicorns exist. There is no evidence to support the claim gods exist. Both claims carry equal weight and can be dismissed equally easily. Why don't you explain why your god claims should be considered special instead of avoiding the question I asked?

My guess is your materialism. Thus you need to defend your materialism here and then clarify your categorical fallacy.

Feel free to provide evidence of a non material reality and I will be happy to listen. But you are not going to do that because, as stated previously, you have none.

Just because you believe in a god does not make your belief special. Why should they be treated differently?

Just because you don’t believe in a god means your reasons for doing so are reasonable.

This is getting old. I don't believe in the claims of the Bible because I do not find the claims of the Bible to be credible and supported by evidence. And so on for the Quran, and any other religious texts that are popular. When you can provide evidence to support the claim that Biblegod exists I will be happy to listen.

- - - Updated - - -

This is in context to my last post to bilby.

If you want my (or anyone's) worldview, you should ask what it is. For myself, very broadly speaking, my worldview is naturalism; I think nature is all. And where does atheism fit in there? Is it a doctrine of naturalism?

Empirically I have done just that several times!

Thank you for stating your atheistic worldview of naturalism. I contend that just about all atheistic worldviews posit this positive claim.

Naturalism certainly needs a defense, it is not true by default. Would you also espouse materialism?

You are able to post on this internet forum using tools developed using naturalistic methods of science. It works. What other defense is required?

 

[remez]

Why were you surprised. I know perfectly well why the six thousand year old universe interpretation has "fallen out of favor". The fact that the idea was silly became obvious to all but the most bull headed several hundred years ago. The discussion that followed in Christianity was how to "interpret" the Bible so that it didn't appear so ridiculous. The post was to show that the idea that "the Bible is accepted as infallible true divine revelation" ain't so except for a small hard corps section of Christianity.

A misinterpretation in no way destroys infallibility.

The Bible is recognized by others as something that is not to be taken entirely literally.

A correct view in my opinion. Jesus isn’t a door in a literal sense. And you are not a goat.

little things like redefining the length of a day.

No redefining. The word day is used three different ways in the first 2 chapters of genesis. It was unreasonable to always conclude that it meant simply 24 hours. Exs. He worked day and night (12 hours). Back in the day before electricity (unspecified @ of time). Open 24 hours a day. Yom meant all three. The context is what clarifies the word.

 

[remez]

Did you miss this part of my post which stated why atheists reject theist claims?

No I understand that clearly. You seem to be missing the direction of my objection. I’m challenging the materialism you employ to conclude there is no evidence.

Feel free to provide evidence of a non material reality and I will be happy to listen.

The laws of logic.
How can materialism account for the laws of logic? It reasonably can’t.
Thus, the reasoning of your rejection is faulty and that is what I was challenging.

Immaterial entities do exist.

Caution; I’m not claiming that all fictional characters exist. That is the categorical error I was addressing earlier as annoying. You can’t assume that all fictional characters are actual immaterial entities. It would be irrational to place the laws of logic in the same category as unicorns.

You are able to post on this internet forum using tools developed using naturalistic methods of science. It works. What other defense is required?

Does the “scientific method” presuppose the laws of logic?

 

[remez]

i have yet to see a reason to believe in any deities.

So it is safe for me to assume you have seen reasons for deities.
By what reasoning did you reject those reasons?
I am addressing the reason you had to reject deities.
Materialism?
Naturalism?
Scientism?
Empiricism?
Falsifacationism?
Verificationism?
Logical Positivism?
Perhaps your foundation of rejection is faulty?

 

[Keith&Co.]

i have yet to see a reason to believe in any deities.

So it is safe for me to assume you have seen reasons for deities.

That seems rather the exact opposite of my claim, really.
I've seen claims of deities, but no deities.
I've seen claims of leprechauns, but no leprechauns.
I've seen claims of etc., etc., etc.

By what reasoning did you reject those reasons?

Ah. Why do i reject arguments from ignorance? Arguments from presupposition? Arguments of name-calling? Arguments of rationalization?
Because EITHER they don't actually provide evidence for a deity apart from the sincerity of the believer's beliefs, or because as evidence, they work equally well for Jehovah as they do for Allah, for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, for DDLM(tlimfp), for Zeus/Odin/Ganesh/Apollo/Bastet...

I am addressing the reason you had to reject deities.
Materialism?
Naturalism?
Scientism?
Empiricism?
Falsifacationism?
Verificationism?
Logical Positivism?
Perhaps your foundation of rejection is faulty?

I am not aware that i need a foundation to find silly arguments to be silly. I don't know that i have any such formal foundation.
I just noticed that the arguments are by and large, not compelling unless one already agrees to the conclusion. Kinda like UFOs, Bigfoot, White Supremacy, ESP, the Paleo diet and so on.

For an example, someone told me that there is a billion to one chance of life forming without divine guidance.
I tend to think that's a made-up number, but let's pretend it's scientific.
If that's true, then a comparison to the estimated number of planets in the universe makes it pretty much a certainty that life will form without divine guidance. The argument is only impressive if your math skills suck. So, what's that foundation? Counting-ism?

 

[Sarpedon]

I got it. You were mocking peoples beliefs about the worldview of atheism.
You bet, if you don't want mockery, why don't you bring out some evidence?
Perhaps you missed my point. I was not challenging your vague mockery. I was attempting to show that even atheists proclaim that atheism is a worldview. Thank you for your support.

I said no such thing. All you've done is reinforce my view that religious 'intellectuals' have nothing but word-play and distortions in their bag of tricks. If you want to count my light hearted joke as 'supporting' your argument, that only shows how pathetic your argument is.

 

[skepticalbip]

A misinterpretation in no way destroys infallibility.

The Bible is recognized by others as something that is not to be taken entirely literally.

A correct view in my opinion. Jesus isn’t a door in a literal sense. And you are not a goat.

Now I am convinced you are being deliberately obtuse. You know that I meant that the creation story in Genesis is not to be taken seriously. The largest sect of Christianity certainly doesn't. The Catholic Church recognizes it as myth. They accept the 13+ billion year old universe and evolution but see the big bang as the way god created the universe and evolution as the way he created species.

So, how old is the universe according to your sect? How old is the Earth? Is evolution a fact or were all species originally created as they are? How does your sect respond the the answers given by the sciences, if the sect's view is different than the science answers? If different, does your sect have any evidence to support their different view?

little things like redefining the length of a day.

No redefining. The word day is used three different ways in the first 2 chapters of genesis. It was unreasonable to always conclude that it meant simply 24 hours. Exs. He worked day and night (12 hours). Back in the day before electricity (unspecified @ of time). Open 24 hours a day. Yom meant all three. The context is what clarifies the word.

:laughing-smiley-014

Gotta love people trying to pretend (and actually convincing themselves) that what is plainly and clearly written means something other than what it says. But then what people who are struggling to justify their beliefs and faith by self denial no longer surprise me. The self delusion so common in most faiths is what created one of the earlier problems I was attempting to understand when I still thought that there was something worthwhile to understand.

You do realize, don't you, that religious bull shit like this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the existence of god or gods? It is all about supporting those merely human people who establish the particular dogma, tenets, rituals, etc of the particular sects.